today. we are losing a lot of crt and the natural diversity of the landscape that is so important and i think a lot of people forget that, that it all boils down to commodity prices and crop insurance and that is all that really matters and it goes a ways further than that. those wetlands out there, what is the value of those? i'm not even going to talk about that. some people would emphasize that as important. i see it as a value as far as clean water and the fact of what we are doing to the watershed on downstream, so if we don't drown out these small towns, that is important i think and i would think it's important of those people downstream. what is the value of grasslands out there? if we have her grams that strictly.towards what is the best in the commodity for today and don't look at the long-term

future, we are going to have a real mess and it is happening in my country now. appreciate all the support that we can get from the agencies on that and that we really need to make sure that the playing field is level. so all the programs that are out there, like i said there is some overlap and especially in course but we do need to keep that diversity on the landscape. the good lord made up for a reason and we need to keep it out there. >> i think that the agencies at the federal level particularly as it relates to safety has done a phenomenal job. the one thing, and i know you wanted as bad as those us out in the field wanted, is you need to have the flexibility to adapt things as they change. i can give you a couple of great examples. chief dave white from an rcs saw that name, address that need through the sage grouse initiative and did it fast.

there was let's get it done. huge, huge benefit to our state, but we see the same kind of thing in the partners program for fish and wildlife where they were able to look and adapt and maneuver and obviously as secretary salazar said earlier, it helps if you can be more nimble and you have adequate money to get the job done and that remains a critical piece of it. >> i probably get 20 to 30 phonecalls a week from cropland owners inquiring about land and inevitably the first question they ask is, can i make money? i can confidently answer yes and then they almost never asked, can i make more money with another vision and the next thing they say almost without exception is i want my kids to

see woods like i remember. that drives more people i think i may give them credit for but in order to make that economic argument robust, being able to provide that reduction in upfront costs or early return on investments with the programs and the programs they really provide really tips that balance and so it is profitable without it but it is obviously profitable with that and it really is a critical component of people making that leap to get what they want from their land but are afraid to try. there is a strong stewardship out there but people are afraid of making a bad long-term economic decision with children and grandchildren. that really helps us. >> i am interested in the comment you made about energy and the possibilities as you

see. talk to me a little bit more about how that helps you make the case and to correct's point about the economics of all this. energy could help make that economic case could net. >> yes, canon what we have seen is that with the forest problem that we have in much of the west, we have a lot of material that doesn't have the traditional market. the emergence of woody biomass to use for thermal and heat energy has really become the approach that we are seeing that will change the economies and the kind of facilities -- tell an example ingram county oregon where we had the honor of working with the community, with a collaborative group their there was an investment that went to the local mail to start making pellets and so they were able to disperse a vivek products while doing shavings and doing an amazing job. they are deeply involved in a

collaborative process and mayhem of agreement from that stakeholder to materialize the airport, hospital and most recently the high schools have changed out their boiler so they are creating the local market for those pellets. now of course they probably make our pellets than they will consume there so there is an interplay but if we are seeing almost 11 of these smaller biomass facilities, community scale creating local energy and that is really part of the transformation process that creates markets for the energy mix community more self-reliant. enterprise oregon, their schools save $100,000 in energy costs last year and that means that they can hire more teachers. they are a community that has an excellent school, top notch but they only can afford to keep the schools open four days a week so this is no minor thing in a community of that size and scale. when we talk about energy we

talk about utilizing the materials that are local and adding as much value as you can locally and capturing as much of that wealth as you can before you send it out of the community. >> you have got a pretty big operation and you must be looking at the economics of all this. talk to me from a landowner farmer perspective. how do you pencil it out? i know that it's important that dam varmint of benefits of it but there has to be some economic equation. talk to us about the thought process. >> what are the things we learned in the 19 80s was economically we needed to change our operation and as we did that we learned to place natural resources as a priority. up until then, my train of thought was all about productio,

production and as we changed our philosophy to basing that on natural resources in our case a simple things such as not putting up all the feed that the cattle required during the wintertime had multiple effects. number one we weren't wasting energy on fee production, or is much. my son-in-law told me a couple of days ago we need to seed with the weather we are having so we do have some unhampered just the fact of being able to go to less feed preparation, less speeding was a real economic boon and also it saved oil. so we went from being in financial straits to be able to turn our operation around with assistance from many different programs, agencies, partners for conservation as you mentioned,

the interior has been a fantastic program. we have used a number of them and we are really able to change our operation around to where energy isn't near as big a concern is what it used to be and we have made a real priority of trying to be efficient from an energy standpoint because it's an item that really concerns me. in the process we also learned that in the meantime because of our management the wildlife flourish. we added new hunting enterprises for operation that i never anticipated we were going to do but because of proper land management all of a sudden we were being overrun with a number of songbirds. bob probably wouldn't be sitting here if we had taken care of the sage grouse and there is a long lineup of other potential

migratory species and songbirds that are waiting and we really need to take a look at our land management as far as preserving them. >> i've got a sign that i can't see very well so do you want to come a little closer? is that what it says? 30 seconds. [laughter] alright, well i think i'd used up the entire 30 seconds by asking about it. 30 seconds, okay. i can read that one. [laughter] can, this is what you have to look forward to when you have a few more birthdays. we are going to have to pause here but this has been a great conversation. i have found it really informative than i want to thank you all for participating. [applause]

president obama spoke about visiting yellowstone national park is a boy and returning years later with his family. he said the nation can grow the economy while still preserving its wild spaces. his's remarks were about 20 minutes. he is in this house and your house. [applause]

the president and i go back a long ways by probably one of my most favorite memories of my time with the president is going to yellowstone with him and the first lady and sasha and bali and watching him stand there at old faithful are walking around the great wonders and icons of our world. he is not only been to yellowstone but also to the grand canyon and the vacation with the family at arcadia national park. michelle loves the outdoors and she will tell you and is doing a tremendous job. his love and legacy of conservation come from the understanding of the people of this country because much of the introduction he got at the united states of america are with his mother and his grandmother as a very young man when they came across this country. from the time that we came into the obama administration in 2009, he has been leading a conservation effort that we are truly proud of. we are proud of the public lands

act which was spearheaded and signed into law and 2009 beginning of his administration. we are proud of the fact that we launched the great outdoorsman program and communities from sea to shining sea and mubarak with much of the agenda you've heard today from the hills of kansas to the everglades afforded to the designation of wortman wrote this president knows what the people of america are telling him and it's about listening to all of you, so we champion rural area, it champion of conservation a person understands the importance of tourism and job creation for america. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪ >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you so much. everybody, have a seat. have a seat. well it is good to have all of you in here. welcome to washington. i want to thank ken salazar for the introduction. did everybody know that it is his birthday today? [laughter] has seen milk that enough? i just wanted to make sure everybody wished him a happy birthday. at turning 40 is tough. [laughter] we have also got our outstanding secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, in the house. [applause] are wonderful epa administrator, lisa jackson, is with us.

[applause] and i want want to thank all of you for being a part of this conference. now, i have to say that this is it pretty diverse group here today. we have got hunters and fishermen. we have got farmers and ranchers. we have got conservationists. we have got small business owners. we have got local government leaders, we have got tribal leaders. in some of you may just have wandered in, i don't know. [laughter] but you are all here for the same reason. at each of you has a deep appreciation for the incredible natural resources, the incredible bounty that we have been blessed with as a nation. and you are working hard every day to make sure those resources are around for my daughters, your children and hopefully their children to enjoy.

doing that, takes creativity. the great although leopold once said that conservation is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution. it's not just about doing nothing. it's about doing something affirmative, to make sure that we are passing on this incredible blessing that we have. and you also know that effective conservation is about war than just protecting our environment. it's about strengthening our economy. when we put in place new commonsense rules to reduce air pollution, like we did in december, it was to prevent our kids from breeding and dangerous chemicals. that is something we should all be able to agree on but it will also create new jobs, building and installing all sorts of pollution control technology.

and since it will prevent thousands of heart attacks and childhood asthma it will also take some strain off of our health care system. when we make a commitment to restore a million acres of grasslands, wetlands, wildlife habitat like the department of agriculture and interior did today, were not just preserving our land and water for the next-generation. we are also making more land available for hunting and dishing. and we are olds during an outdoor economy that supports more than 9 million jobs and brings in more than a trillion dollars a year. [applause] and when we make it easier to visit this country, like we have done recently in accelerating the process for travelers to get visas, we are not just at boosting tourism in big cities and places like disney world. we are helping more people discover our parks and our

mountains and our beaches and more visitors means more people renting cars and staying in hotels, being at our restaurants in buying our equipment. so the work you are doing today is important if we are going to grow our economy and put more people back to work. but conservation is also important when it comes to another issue that i've been talking about lately and that is developing new sources of american-made energy. obviously gas prices are a lot of folks minds right now and we are getting another painful reminder of why developing new energy is so important for our future. of course because it's an election year everyone is trotting out their three-point plan for gas and you know if that involves. you drill, you drill in the neutral zamora. we have heard this for 30 years. the american people know better. they understand we can't just

drill our way out of high gas prices. we are doing everything we can to boost u.s. production but if we are going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes in the future, then we have got to have a sustained all-of-the-above strategy that develops every source of american energy, yes oil and gas but also wind and solar and biofuels and more. we are making progress on this front. in 2010 our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in 13 years. because of the investments we have made -- [applause] because of the investments we have made the use of clean renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled. [applause]

and in my in my state of the union address i announce that we are allowing the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. 3 million homes. that protects our environment and it helps families and businesses. while it is important use public lands to the developing site wind and solar and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we have also got to focus on protecting our planet so that is why teddy roosevelt nature that as we build this country and harvest its bounty we should also protect its beauty. that is part of our national character and historically it has been bipartisan. that is why even as our country grew by leaps and bounds, we made sure to satisfy places like the grand canyon for our children and our grandchildren. is it's why my demonstration has stood up to protect its waters. that is why president kennedy

directed a portion of the revenues from oil and gas production to help communities build trails and ball fields and why my administration has fought to protect the land and water conservation fund. [applause] [applause] that is why the hunters and anglers in this country have always been willing to pay a few extra bucks for a fishing license or a duck stamp that helps protect streams and habitats, because they want to make sure that their grandkids can enjoy these same pastimes. that is why my administration is expanding access to public lands so that more americans can cast a rod or teach their children how to hunt. we have to keep investing in the technology and manufacturing that helps us lead the world but we have also got to protect the places that help define who we

are. that help shape our character and our soul as a nation. places that help attract visitors and create jobs, but that also gives something to our kids that is irreplaceable. all of us have a role to play. one of the first bills assigned after taking office was the public lands bill that protects more than 1000 miles of rivers and established new national parks and trails. [applause] two years ago thanks to some great work in my cabinet, ken salazar especially, kicked off the americas great outdoors initiative to support conservation projects happening in all 50 states including fort monroe in virginia which just became america's 396 the national park. [applause]

right now we are restoring the river of grass in the everglades, providing clean water to millions of residents. [applause] creating thousands of jobs, construction jobs in southern florida. we need to keep moving forward on projects like these that i know we have got ranchers and farmers and landowners here today who represent places like the dakota grasslands and everywhere in between. we need to keep working to protect these incredible landscapes that all of you know so well. the bottom line is this. there will always be people in this country who say we have got to choose between clean air and clean water and it growing economy, between doing right by our environment and putting people back to work. i'm here to tell you that is a false choice. [applause] that is a false choice.

[applause] with smart sustainable policies we can grow our economy today and protect our environment for ourselves and our children. we know it's possible. we know it because it has been happening in communities like yours, where compromise isn't a dirty word, where folks can recognize a good idea no matter where it comes from. a while back i heard a story about the rogue river in oregon. every year the road is filled with salmon swimming upstream to spawn. but because factories were allowed -- allowing warm water to run back into the river the temperature was becoming too high for the salmon to survive so to fix the problem the town could have required the company to buy expensive cooling equipment but that would have hurt the local economy.

instead they decided to pay farmers and ranchers to plant trees along the banks of the river, and that help to cool the water at a fraction of the cost. so it worked for business, it worked for farmers, it worked for the salmon. those are the kinds of ideas we need in this country, ideas that preserve our environment, protect their bottom line and connects more americans to the great outdoors. and this is personally important to me. some of you know that i grew up in hawaii mostly, it and we got some pretty nice outdoors in hawaii. [laughter] and you spend a lot of time outdoors, and you learn very early on to appreciate this incredible splendor. but i remember when i was 11, i had never been to the mainland and my grandmother and my mother

and my sister who at the time was two, decided we were going to take a big summer trip. we traveled across the country. mostly we took greyhound buses. my grandmother was getting -- she had some eye problem so she couldn't see that well so she was a little nervous about driving long distances. sometimes we took the train. we went to the usual spots, disneyland. i was 11, right? [laughter] but i still remember traveling up to yellowstone and and coming over a hill and suddenly just hundreds of deer and seeing bison for the first time and

seeing the old faithful. and i remember that trip giving me a sense of just how msn have grant this country was and how diverse it was and watching folks digging for clams in puget sound and watching ranchers and seeing our first americans guide me through a canyon in arizona. it gave you a sense of just what it is that make america special. and so when i went back to yellowstone with ken and my daughters, that was the first time they had been there and i'm standing there. i'm thinking not only about them and the first time they are seeing this but i'm also remembering back to when my grandmother and my mother had shown me this amazing country so many years before.

and that is part of what we have to fight for. that is what is critical, making sure that we are always there to bequeath that gives the next-generation. [applause] and if you will work with me, if you will work with me i promise i will do everything i can. [applause] i will do everything i can to help protect our economy but also protect this amazing planet that we love and this great country that we have been blessed with. thank you very much everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> gently turning in and down to

christmas. and we have assembled to thezñ world that the queen is now aton the palace ofm westminster. ♪ ♪ x%x%x%xexexexexe

♪ >> the queen and the duke of edinburg are led to the pair of thrones. ♪5555555

♪ >> so the hall is ready for baroness d'souza, the lord speaker. >> we, are assembled here today to celebrate the 60 years of your reign.

we record with affection our appreciation that your dedication and service to people, and your unequaled sense of public duty over the years. service and duty to which you have only recently dedicated yourself. we celebrate, too, the stewardship of your high office. you have solved the continuity and stability, while ensuring that your role as evolves. with the monarchy it's a ethical part of our national life today as it was 60 years ago. we rejoice in this jubilee and we give thanks for all that it represents. at the same time, we record our gratitude for the support which you have received throughout your reign from prince philip. for in this your jubilee, we celebrate his service, too.

this is one of the first of many celebrations to be held up and down the land. in the coming months, you and the duke will traveled widely throughout the kingdom, but today you've come to parliament, the constitutional heart of the' nation, and granted us the'' privilege of being the first of your people formally to honor your jubilee. and where better to begin the celebration than here in the splendor of westminster hall, a hall of kings and queens were almost a millennium. we have seen many historic events. we look forward with great anticipation to the unveiling of the stained-glass window in which members of both houses have commissioned in honor of this day. when placed in the window above the great doors, your coat of

arms will be the halls in color and will be seen daily of members of staff as they walk through to the offices, as well as by the many of thousands of visitors we receive your weekly from both home and abroad. for we must remember that your jubilee will be celebrated with joy and your other roles and territories, and throughout theo rest of the commonwealth. the commonwealth is of course one of the great achievements of your reign, and under your leadership continues to flourish with a membership of 54 countries. it is still growing. we are unaware of its special personal closeness to you. many of us present here today taken active part in the work of the united kingdom branch of the commonwealth parliamentary association. we work to share our experiences to learn from one another and to promote democracy.

but our efforts are as nothing compared to those of her majesty and the services of your beloved commonwealth.zzzz over the years, you have visite all but two commonwealthzzzz countries, some many times, and attended all heads of government meetings since 1997.zzzzzz we look on with admiration and with pride at the triumphs of some of your recent tours. and it is significant that members of the royal family are represented this year after jubilee celebrations being held at all the lands of which your head of state. your majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal and parliament assembled give thanks for this, your diamond jubilee. we look forward to the years to come, and we pray that you and your realm may enjoy the peace, plenty, and prosperity that has

of lords to smile. and once the applause dies down, the speaker of the house of commons, john bercow, will present his address. >> ms. gracious sovereign, we, your faithful comments, are honored to be here to commemorate and celebrate the 60 years of your reign.

better preserved in this historic place than in fallible human memory. time also tells its own story. 60 years ago rationing meant more than a short wait before the arrival of the latest electronic item. 60 years ago, britain had just emerged from a war of an 60 years ago, a new elizabethan era was awaited with enthusiasm, tinged with uncertainty about the challenges ahead for the country. if, as gandhi asserted, the best way to find yourself, is to lose others. in your majesty must have found the last six decades.

others. you said, merely by our courageous armed forces of which your commander hold together that which could have been torn asunder. you have moved with the times, around the rest of society. that.

law, and where your people are respected, regardless of how they live, how they look, or how they love. this is a nation of many races, faiths and customs, beginning out to be reflected in parliament. all of this progress has occurred during your reign. you have become, to many of us, a kaleidoscope queen of a the first events across these islands in tribute to you, and this great anniversary. rightly embrace the duke of edinburgh, other members of your these will be moment striking scenery encountered. 60 years of stability.

60 years of security. 60 years of certainty. 60 years of sacrifice. 60 years of service. gentle way you can shake the world. your majesty, in a gentle way you have shaken this united kingdom, and the world, for six decades. on behalf of all the members of the house of commons, may i thank you wholeheartedly for all that you have done, are doingå and will do for the good of ouå9

the address to her majesty on behalf of the house of commons. john bercow will return to his seat, and he was a signal that collects to unveil the gift, which is the window. [applause]#l#l#l#l#l#l#l >> the queen preparing now having received the gift, preparing to deliver heróó response on this occasion, a diamond jubilee. >> my lords and members of the house of commons.

i am most grateful for your loyal addresses, and the generous words of lord speaker[ and[ mr. speaker.[[[[[[[ this great institution has been at the heart of the country, and the lives of our people throughout its history. as parliamentarians, you share with your forebears a fundamental8z role in the laws r decisions of your own age.8r8rxr parliament has survived as an unshakable of our constitution, and our way of life. history links monarchs and parliament, a connecting thread from one period to the next. so in an area when the regular worthy rhythm of life is left eye-catching, then doing something extraordinary, i am reassured that -- to celebrate a diamond jubilee.

as today, it was my privilege to address you during my silver and golden jubilee's. many of you present 10 years ago, and some of you will recall since my accession, i have been westminster, and as of the last count have had a [applause]????????? over such a period, one can??? observe the experience of??? venerable old age can be a??? mighty guide, but not a????? prerequisite for success in public? office.??????

i'm the?refore very pleased to? addressing many younger parliamentarians, and also thosú bringing skúuch a wide range of@ background and experience to!@ @ your vital national work. during these years as you're going, the support of my fami house, across the generations, being beyond measure. prince philip is i believe well known for declining compliments? of any kind./////ooo [laughter]ó butw throughout, he has been aó constant strengtóh and guide. he and i are very proud andnn grateful that the prince of wales, and other members of our jubilee

affinity population.!d!d!d!d!d!d!d!d my own associations with theada@ commonwealth has taught me that the most important contact? between nations is usuallyñ contact between its peoples. and organization dedicated toñ certain values, the commonwealth has flourished and grown byñññ successfully promoting and protecting that contact.'''' at home, prince philip and inçnç will be visiting towns and cities up and down the land.nçnç it is my sincere hope that thenç diamond jubilee will be annçnçnç opportunity for people to come together in a spirit of neighboring nests and celebration of their own communities. we also hope to celebrate the professional and voluntary

service given by millions of people across the country, who are working for the public good they are a source of vital support to the welfare and well being of others, often unseen or overlooked.ñ and as we reflect upon public service, let us begin be mindfu of the remarkable sacrifice and courage of our armed forces. much may indeed have changed these past 60 years, but the valor of those who risked the lives for the defense and freedom of our full remains undimmed. the happy relationship i have enjoyed with parliament has extended well beyond the more than three and a half thousand

beautiful window cost just a little extra color to shine down upon this ancient place, i should gladly settle for that. we are reminded here of our past, of the continuity of our national story, and the virtues of resilience, ingenuity, and tolerance which created it. i have been privileged to witness some of that history, d with the support of my family, we dedicate myself to the service of our great country, and its people, now and in the years to come. [applause]

>> prime minister leaves a standing ovation for her majesty.al lord speaker joining in, enthusiastically, and speaker john bercow, too.lolnlololo÷÷oo her majesty acknowledging it and what happens now is the twoykyk÷ ááeakers will approach the,(,(,( orone again, and the queen wilo

acknowledges. prolonged display of affection from the hall.

♪ >> the lord steps forward to assist the queen to the halters

parliamentary staff, and thank them for their work in service, and then we will go on to a÷o÷o reception, at private receptio in the royal gallery, which is hosted by the two speakers. so the queen they're referring to the great window,? and then> john bercow? explaining the otr winner will be installed on the other side.' the queen very familiar with th' south window with her father's coat of arms display.÷÷ so into saint stephens hall, and this is the main area that lead÷ up to the central lobby of the houses of parliament, standing on the÷b side of the royal chapl of saint stephens, a very, very interesting part of the palace because this is what house of commons sat back until the

chapel was destroyed in the westminster hall, now maze and same on the two chambers can't set to do those, but i love explaining the little bit of adjustment today because of into the central office where thegcgkgjgjgngngl staff in the central lobby there. many of them working, some ofeft them will be working ingt the offices a cross-section of staf! for their work.

so as we enjoy the images in westminster hall, let's stay with his because we will see some of the main parts leaving. but in the meantime, i would like to reflect on what we have heard, principally the response to the two addresses. what did you draw from that?oúoú >> i oúthought of very upbeat,o very forwardo looking speech. it was very interesting, lookinw back on all the change the quee is bound to talk about the col war to the queen really was focusing on the here and now, and as you rightly predicted,qqq she paidq a big tribute to theqa commonwealth, clearly, that'saaa something she feeals veryúaaaúúa strongly during this ring.úúa i think there's a good she is a queen of 16 countries but she can't visit them all such was to keep remind them from her that

she's thinking of them throughout your. this isn't just a british a fair, this is an affair for all the realms. that came through loud and clear. public service, very strong. twice she singled out, talk professional and voluntary, and i think every aspect and, obviously, the armed forces. feel that someone is "the daily mail" and they mentioned before several books. yours to the phrase used by the; the fact that she is a shaker of things. what did you make of that? >> i was interested in the idea for shaking things.0txuxñ9ç it's his way of looking at a.ó she's very muchç someone whoc one thing, you know, i know what came to the drones she was very much -- david cameron and the@c archbishop, now we know the g?tgoing archbishop ofqñqssc?

canterbury will be preparing toñ leave london post to the races on to succeeding.óó and david cameron on his way to that reception atóó the royal gallery.ó and as we seeó people leavingw preparing to enjoy that reception which is hosted by tha speakers, what do you wasó! noteworthy? prime minister. queen. with the queen how much she is delighted by and how important prince philip is to her for support. and we must remember the coalition prince philip -- she was crowned alone and that was never repeated. she was determined prince philip i think really a great intimacy

with our prime ministers. >> when she said he doesn't take to the duke. her golden jubilee, the queen didn't really mention her family, nobody by name. it was basically a business as usual speech. here she singled out members.)) there was definitely a sense ofi i royal plea taking this jubilee and i think that's something eech. will be a busy few months ahead.qpzñzñzñzñzñzñzñzñ >> she was saying let's getzñzññ started with the party, i thinkñ >> will be the highlight of the jubilee we can?[][][][][][][][x

>> i think just behind me there] is the river.óóóóóó i think the sight of them are comingó down, charles ii, thats got to be one of them. then we'll see her in the gold stagecoach. >> thank you very much, both ofñ u.ñ just one line, of course will wwve comprehensive coverage ofww the diamond jubilee celebrations this year as they happen on bbcu one in urgent.ñuñuñuñuñuñu so you'll be joining us for thañ no doubt and ññwhen looking forñ already.ñ out for now for more of the king, thanks for watching today and goodbye. ♪

♪ >> every minute of every wednesday here in c-span2 we take you live to the british house of commons for coverage of prime minister's questions. this week due to daylight savings time it begins an hour later at 8 a.m. eastern. >> they will continue work on legislation to reduce legislation that expands small business access to cap. the house version of the measure passed with bipartisan support earlier this month. at 11:30 a.m. senators are expected to take a series of votes for the bill. the chamber recessing from 12:30-2:15 eastern for their weekly party lunches. harry reid said he expects to

complete work on the bill by the end of the week. on c-span3 the house armed services committee holding a hearing looking at recent development in afghanistan, testifies include general john allen and james miller junior, the acting defense undersecretary and principal undersecretary for policy. live coverage of that begins at 10 a.m. eastern again on c-span3. >> the u.s. house this week is expected to vote on a bill that would repeal a section of the health care law that creates a 15 person board charged with recommending i've hundred billion dollars in spending cuts to medicare. yesterday house republican freshmen at a press conference to voice their support for repeal of the independent payment advisory board. this is about 30 minutes. >> thank you all so much for joining us here today.

we wanted to talk a little bit about medicare and the independent payment advisory board. want to start by pointing out -- first i have a quote of president obama. quote, if you look at the numbers, medicare in particular will run out of money, and will not be able to sustain the program no matter how much taxes go up. i mean, it's just not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. there's another quote here. the bottom line, medicare is hurtling toward its demise to our government is approaching a cataclysmic fiscal tipping point, while washington is busy posturing for the next election. we ought to be able to all agree that medicare has to be reformed to save it. we got to be able to do that. we've come up with reforms here in the house, our budget. i'm sure that we're about to vote on soon will have medicare reforms in it. we've seen a bipartisan medicare

reform with the ryan-widen medicare reform. and we can debate which reforms our best and how we need to proceed in that area. but what we can do is simply cut without changing the way medicare works. that's not reform. and that's what the ipad, the independent payment advisory board is in the presence health care plan does. it basically says we're not going to reform medicare, were not going to change medicare to save, where not going to change the internal workings of medicare so that it provides more services for less money. we're not going to do any of that. what we're going to do with the ipab is a leave medicare exactly as it is and what starts to run out of money have an unelected board of bureaucrats start cutting or rationing, depending

on how you define it, care. in the end result, in that scenario is, you will have more and more seniors who can't find doctors that take medicare. medicare reimbursements already significantly below the private sector provides. and it's going to be even worse if ipab kicks in. so what the president has said basically what ipab is, i know we need to reform medicare but i don't want to do it, i'll just create this entity, this board, to cut. and that's, we are trying to reverse that here in the house, working on obvious he working on legislation to do that. and there's a lot of folks on the other side or interested, democrats, who are interested in reversing and killing ipab as well. >> thank you, tim. renee ellmers, i'm here as one

of my fellow freshman and am also a nurse. i've been in health care for many, many years. my husband is a general surgeon so this is obvious that an issue we are very, very funny with. what this bill will do is actually serve two purposes. one, it does repeal the independent payment advisory board, which is basically 15 individuals who will be making decisions for medicare. what decisions will they be? they will be what medicare will and will not pay for it so as a senior goes to receive care, they may or may not be able to receive it, depending on what that board decides. so there is a large bipartisan support to repeal ipab and i think that's an essential piece. the other part, rather than just repeating something we have to be replacing as well and that's what we've dedicated ourselves to, and we said over and over again that he can't just be repeating. we've got to reform. so the other essential piece here is reform of frivolous

malpractice law, lawsuits. basically would've said all along that one of the ways that we can improve upon health care is by putting this piece in place. the our estimates of $50 billion a year and up that says that will save money and health care if we are able to reform malpractice lawsuits. why? because physicians practice defensive medicine every day. they order numbers tests because of the fear of lawsuits. now, we're not talking talking about leaving anyone unable to be protected in the event that a malpractice lawsuit were to move forward, and were to be true malpractice. what this does is this limits of those lawsuits that come forward simply without merit. and the cost of physicians and hospitals have to face every day because of it. i'm very much in favor of the bill. i think it is an essential

piece, and then, of course, moving forward with hopeful repeal of obamacare itself. thank you. >> good afternoon. sandy adams, florida 24th district a about two years ago we are the emphasis from thin speaker pelosi, we have to pass a bill and no within to americans across the country were watching and now they know what's in it. two years later they're finding out. is ipab four, the board that decides between your care, not you, not your doctor, the board. bureaucrats who entity no one but themselves get to decide what your health care will be. not you and your family and your doctor, bureaucrats. he also said this would create jobs. it didn't. she also said it would lower costs. it didn't. was said we could keep our own

plans or our own doctors if we wanted. and you can't. i'm here to tell you that meeting with our business owners throughout the district, i was talking to the branch on several franchises and they were telling me about the costs to cover their employees now, and the fact that it is going up, not down, and the fear that they have that they will be able to cover their employees. this is a problem that the american people are facing. it was caused by this bill that was passed without anyone knowing what was in it. as for speaker, then speaker pelosi's own words, pass the bill and find out what's in. the american people have found out what's in it and they don't like. it's time that we saw repeating this piece of legislation. ipab is one part of it. let's get the bureaucrats out of our health care. let's get government out of our health care.

let's make the decisions between a doctor, their patients and their family. thank you. >> hello. congressman scott -- i don't think that anyone sitting out here today can argue that medicare is in trouble. we know medicare is going broke but you can look at a number of different sources to see what number you like. 10 years is a pretty good average. aarp knows this. we know this. and i can say this is not a republican promise him or a problem. it's not a democratic problem. this is a people problem. so for everyone who has parents or grandparents on medicare, you should be very afraid of his ipab bill. we set forth a responsible means of fixing medicare in the ryan budget. we all know that we can agree on the facts medicare is going broke. we have a plan in place that will start to correct, preserve and protect medicare for future generations in the rhine plan, but instead we are villainize for that.

we are accused of literally pushing grandmother off the cliff. and click that is the kind of demagoguery we don't need when we're trying to take care of our seniors need an access for care. ipab was brought to the forefront on my good friend and fellow physician and colleague from tennessee, dr. phil wrote. and that several of my colleagues did, this is a board of bureaucrats designed to put a washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor. that's not what any of our seniors want, and it is past with cutting, helping got 500 billion from the medicare program. this is going to take place in the form of rationing of care. they can save that it isn't but it is. it's going to take somebody who's in need of a test and the board will decide if the test is over but that's not the direction we want to see medicare going. so repeating his ipab is actually important and it's been

a bipartisan effort here in the house, and i really hope that we can moving the right direction and get this legislation passed and protect our seniors now and in the future insurance other access to care. >> i'm alan nunnelee from mississippi one. about this time last year the house of representatives passed a budget, and in the budget we laid out a framework for future debate and discussion on how to deal with our enormous national debt, and the medicare problem that's driving a large portion of that debt. when we passed that budget, the result was the other side didn't want to discuss the issue. they just make commercial of chairman ryan pushing seniors off a cliff. over the next two weeks, i hope we are going to be able to continue to have discussions. those who only want to deal with

soundbites and demagogue the issue have not put forth a reasonable alternative, nor have they put forth a reasonable test to the status quo. right now the status quo is cutting a half a trillion dollars from medicare beneficiaries. a half a trillion dollars of payment for health care that will result in rationing, that will result in patients not getting the care that they need. the status quo will also result in an unelected group of bureaucrats making decisions for health care for people in northern mississippi. i don't think any of those things are good. so i'm hopeful that we can continue this meaningful discussion on reform for the medicare program, while we will protect existing recipients, we will also make sure that the program is there for their

grandchildren. and then we will also repeal this unelected groups of bureaucrats that stand between patients and their doctors. >> thank you all for being here today. it's two years from this friday is one health care bill first pass, and is actually true, now we do know as nancy said, nancy pelosi said, we know what's in the bill, and there's so much in there not to like. one of the greatest things that a victory since problem with with is the ipab board, unelected bureaucrats decided to care that our seniors will have access to. we can tell from how this is written that it will absolutely limit access to care. and it really limits it on two fronts. one is the board can decide what type of treatment can be given. the other that is a spoken about so much what needs to be discussed is cuts, the cuts that happen in the coming any savings

that happen only happened by reducing the amount is paid out to physicians. uncaring doctor after doctor, physician after physicians think i can no longer take any new medicare patients. i have to limit the number of medicare patients i have. so what good is a foursome that medicare when have no doctor will be able to see them? that is limiting care. when you turn it around to we need to do the right thing and fix medicare for our seniors, for our future. that is the work that ought to be done. this was the wrong direction. i think there's an important step we take this weekend that is addressing the real problem of lawsuit abuse and the high costs have inflicted because of lawsuit abuse against doctors, against hospitals, and the amount of defensive medicine that goes in and how we all pay a price for the. it drives up our costs of care that we can have, their seniors can now. let's talk about that. let's address that. lets you all weekend to address the real problem of health care and that's the cost of health care. make sure that the patient can still see the doctor they want to see a not have a board of

bureaucrats determining what type of gear they can receive. this is what we can do if we come together and work together, to fix medicare. >> it's great to see you all, and this is what a special week in washington. i'm fortunate in that i the group of senior advisers back home in northwest pennsylvania. those of the people i talk to everyday and those are the people that really we're talking here today and we're talking about doing something to them that they didn't envision if they quite don't understand. and so as we stated this week and we watched the cherry blossoms unfold, pete i think on wednesday and then they'll start to decline, but we also have a group of citizens out there that it peaked and now they're in their decline. my mother-in-law who is 86 is your, and her husband is here. she is 86, harold is 80. big tom, these are guys that are both veterans of the worst. they paid their dues and they

know, they know they did everything they were asked to do. they paid the price. they played by the rules. they are trying to understand why now, why at this time and let them why they being robbed of the most important thing our seniors should have, and that's peace of mind. after you've worked your whole life you think you dignity program, you think i'm pretty sick, i'm coasting on getting towards the end to be taken care by the government because i've always been into this program. let me tell you they are stunned to find out what everybody else is finding out. magister publicans by the way but as democrats saying maybe we should have read it. maybe we should look at what was going to his ipab, what is that exactly? independent payment board? don't answer to anybody? not elected? but appointed. don't answer to congress or to the electorate, can do pretty much anything you want to do. we already know that medicaid, or medicare under its current model will not less. all they are trying to do is fix the that's all they're trying to do, fix it.

keep that promise to the most vulnerable part of our population, our seniors have worked the hardest, thought the most, did everything they could to preserve this great country. and now at this late date we're going to penalize them. now. not on our watch. not on our time. not now, not in the trendy. we will repeal this. will have people on the other side vote for but what now so, you know, what? opera should have read, probably shouldn't -- probably should've tried to understand what is going to do to those people who i represent. we will fix it. we will look at these medical malpractice suits. it's a little bit crazy where we're going with this and i was directing people to make decisions, i'm not going to handle medicare patients. these people are telling their sons and daughters maybe this isn't right profession for you to go into. folks, we're at a really pivotal point in our history right now. won't have to take a look at what government has done to her citizens. this program has hurt and we

need to repeal it right now. i think you for being with us and i think my colleagues. thank you so much. >> the independent in an advisory board was the by someone that did and one method only. it was basically to restrict benefits and, therefore, reduce the cost of medicare so that money could be spent on the rest of the affordable care act. but only in washington could you design a system that would use 15 unelected people by law, a minority of them being health care practitioners, bylaw none of that minority being active practitioners actually decide how health care is going to be delivered to our seniors. that's the opposite of what our seniors one. as the doctor said, our seniors want that decision about health care to be made between a patient and their physicians. that's it. no one looking over their shoulder, don't decide whether in the individual case that's appropriate care or not.

as represented elmer said this will be coupled with tort reform. and it's about time. i was an obstetric anesthesiologist before i came to congress, spent 30 years on labor and delivery suite and the change was dramatic. all driven, by the tort crisis in the united states. where there was no more senior obstetricians, they all left the practice of obstetrics, all the groups were eight or nine up statistics so of them going for care didn't develop a relationship with a single obstetrician but a large group. and, finally, necessary in section rate in the country went up to 40%, all as result of the lack of toward reform. was about time we take that up in congress. we said the bill over to the senate a year ago, and the senate as usual course of an action took no action. this time when we send a bill over their we forced to at least consider toward reform so that our citizens have access to obstetrics and nurse her cheek

in parts of the country with a ton of access to that right now. into. >> i would like to open up for questions. [inaudible] >> when you said the law, are you talking about the broader law, not just the ipab part of it? well, i would say just the opposite. if you leave the ipab in place, you are not changing the way medicare works. you are not changing the rules so that you squeeze more value in reduced costs to all you are doing is cutting costs in a medicare system as it is currently constituted, which by definition will mean less

services provided to people, fewer doctors willing to take medicare patients. so i think just the opposite is true. let me read this to you. yesterday, there was a guy called a senior medical -- medicare patrol officer in arkansas, in my district, he was at a senior center, and a lady stood up angry and said quote, i don't understand why i'm forced to pay my medicare premium, i can't find a doctor who will take me because i'm on medicare. that's a problem now, and that's only going to get worse with ipab. >> are you talking about the obamacare flaw in its entirety? because the law that 63% of americans oppose when it was passed and still over 50% want it repealed? okay. so i mean, clearly it was frontloaded to have a few of the

items that people do like that they can have, or it avoids a lot of preexisting conditions which is something we need to look at. and allows kids to stay on programs and other 24 or 26 so this access to care that had to deal with medications in the total area. so the law was designed to frontloaded a few of the positives factors of the bill itself, it now as we start to roll into the real costly rationing and cutting parts, but i think you'll see that number go back up to a number that was when the bill was first passed in the 60 plus percent would favor repeal. >> in general, you guys advocate for massive spending cuts, $500 billion. why is this one proper speakers utah about cutting 500 thing from medicare in the form of rationing seniors. so it's not a sensible are

rational or reasonable approach when it comes to seniors access to care. i mean, -- >> we all know that if we're going to do with the debt we are going to have to deal with medicare among other programs, with 10,000 retirees going on medicare every day. there's no doubt about we have to deal with cost, but the president's plan, what he does is, he says on not going to reform it, i'm not going to change the way it works, i'm not going to make it better, i'm not going to encourage innovation, i'm not going to do any of those things. i'm just going to rely on reducing line items as needed to reduce services. in my opinion, that's a total copout. because, just because you're against the ipab doesn't mean you're not for doing something. in fact, just the opposite. we are the ones who said yes, we

need to reduce costs, but you can reduce costs and harm seniors access to care, or you can reduce costs and a reformed way, much like, whether you can debate which one you like, whether you like one that we passed last year, the ryan-wyden proposal, whatever it is but the one thing route to be able to agree on is the status quo is completely unacceptable. and from the president's quote, but he says, he seems to get it. but his actions and his budget have simply taken the approach that which is going to cut and we're not going to do anything to change the forces within the program. so there are, there are good ways to save, and there are less preferable ways to say but at this particular program, or this particular law, ipab, will do nothing to make medicare run

differently. it will simply say we run out of money, now we are cutting. >> i'm curious, look, obviously the status quo medicare is not feasible, nor is the status quo in current tax laws, bush tax cuts add trillions to the deficit in the next decade. i've seen speaker boehner, president obama work on this all last summer, close to do. we don't know which side pulled out. would you guys be willing to take on new revenue to see changes and reforms you want and medicare? >> you're offering a false choice. you're saying the status quo of the bush tax cuts and whatever else you said, the point is this, there are a number of ways to reform the tax code, and who has, who has spoken more about reforming the tax code then we -- i don't know if anyone has. i advocate for that every chance i get. so the idea that you somehow have to adopt their version of

change, or you're not for change is nonsense. what we have said, medicare is a completely different issue because of this. with medicare, there's only one reform plan. ipab is not a reform plan. ipab is just a cost got. there's only one reform plan. the senate hasn't passed a reform plan, the last time i checked. the president hasn't proposed a reform plan for medicare. there's one reform plan that has passed, you know, mouse or the senate, and that's our reform plan. now, you talk about taxes all you want and i would be happy to send talk about that. i am all for fundamental reform of the tax code i believe we could get more revenues by adopting a fairer, flatter approach. we talked about that. we voted for last year. at least a framework. you will hear more about that as the year proceeds, but, but

there's no other option on the table with medicare. i would love to debate different medicare reforms. i haven't seen any. >> one of the most harsh criticisms we've heard about the health care law, it is often characterized by a friday of reporters as the death penalty know what you know about this, is that still a fair description of that? >> let me address that. we don't know what is going to turn out to be, he does the bill gave very broad authority to the independent payment advisory board to control those costs in any way they saw fit. so they could, in fact, fulfill

the anti-requirement through end-of-life care. they could, on the other hand, just oppose and across the board payment cut to all providers, which really would result in the ration of care as you've heard about it in my rural area it's already hard to find a primary care providers who takes medicare, who accepts new medicare patients. and across the board cut would be devastating. but, in fact, are the problem with the independent payment advisory board is it is completely nonspecific as to how that is done with no congressional oversight to it. with regards to the question of cost, you know we have budget neutrality rules and effect when you combine his ipab repeal with the toward reform, we actually turn money to the treasury and actually hope to solve the deficit. it is completely consistent with the republicans. >> the ryan budget tomato come out is going to apparently it includes some medicare reform that might -- just wanted to get your thoughts about that.

>> well, i think it's another example of the house leading by throwing reforms out there for discussion so that we can solve this problem. i mean, nothing but crickets from the senate on this front. they are still struggling with the issue of a budget. we did something on this last year. and as i've said before, i am happy to debate all sorts of different reforms that save medicare. but the status quo is unacceptable, because the status quo, as president obama and senator lieberman, and many, many others have pointed out, the status quo leads to bankruptcy. and so, when you hear the demagoguery about proposed reforms, compared to the status quo, that is dishonest. because the status quo is not a possibility.

>> [inaudible conversations] senate republicans took to the floor yesterday to speak out against the health care law. minority whip jon kyl cited as much in the congressional budget office which is said he said that please the cost of the 1.77 bundlers over tenure to joining the arizona center in opposition to the law for ron johnson of esconsin and jeff sessions ofio alabama. this is just over 50 minutes. u..

been marked the second anniversary of that what i would calling a very orwellian-named piece of legislation, because i personally do not believe that it is either going to protect the patients, and i do not believe that it is going to improve the affordability of our health care system. mr. johnson: the reason i ran for the united states senate was primarily because of this law. i certainly recognized how it was going to result in a lower quality of health care, how it's going to lead to rationing, and how it's going to to lead to rationing. the house will limit the amount of medical innovation we enjoy in this country. in particular, i was offended by the political process demonizing doctors and health-care providers. demonizing a health care system in order to pass this health care law. the reason that offended me is a

personal story that has to do with my daughter who was joined with the serious congenital heart defect. the president obama said would cut out a set of tonsils for a few extra dollars, doctors saved her life with and the first few hours of flight. and incredibly dedicated and skilled team of medical professionals totally reconstructed the upper chamber of the hard. her heart operates backwards now. she is 28 years old and is a nurse herself in that neonatal intensive care unit taking care of those little babies. when they passed patient protection affordable care act i knew the health care system to save my daughter was at risk.

i also knew that this health care law was in no way, shape or form was going to reduce the federal deficit. it is not possible. how can you expect to add twenty-five million people to government run health care and reduce deficit at the same time. the reason they were able to put forward that fiction is the proposed a piece of legislation that would have revenue, fees and taxes, for ten years, and providing benefits for the last six years of that time period. to raise revenue in ten years, about $1.1 trillion and have six years of costs under $2 million. that was the fiction.

half of that revenue generated in fees. by increasing taxes. increasing fees, and medical devices, pharmaceuticals, i don't see why that bend the cost curve down. the same logic as president has used talking about high gasoline prices. by increasing tax, and bruce the price of gas. it is not possible. increasing fees and providers and reimbursement rates is not going to bend the cost curve down enough for that happen. the other half of that, payments

to medicare providers. it does not enact the sustainable growth rate to cut providers because they realize if they do that, access for seniors to medical care will be reduced. i don't see how if we reduce medicare by $529 billion how that same access will also be reduced. from my standpoint i think it is highly unlikely that congress will actually enact at $529 billion worth of reduction to medicare. when they do that the $100,300,000,000 reduction in our deficit, that fiction will toledo weigh. another reason that fiction is being exposed is because fortunately congress realized the class act portion of obamacare simply wasn't going to save the money that they said it was going to save.

it simply wasn't sustainable. budget committee chairman ted conner called a class act a ponzi scheme. the administration decided not to move forward on litigation. in doing so, it is removing $70 billion of revenue from that budgetary fiction. i know senator john kyl has been following this in terms of what is going to happen to this federal budget. i wonder if you could comment on what you see as the effect of the health care law on the federal budget and why that won't save us $143 billion in the first year and probably result in greater cost to the federal government if this is implemented. >> mr. president, i take my colleague from wisconsin you are absolutely right and let me first of all say millions of citizens around this country have gotten engaged for the same

reason you did. as a normal citizen running the business and use of was happening here. they bring that message from america to the senate chamber but you have done it. you are absolutely right. it turns out your prediction than those of us on the center for. it will cost a lot more than democratic friends say will cost, a lot more than the congressional budget office estimated and the numbers are in and here they are. the nonpartisan congressional budget office last week just released its updated figures. the cost of the obamacare subsidy spending is going to almost double. when obamacare was passed they estimated the cost would be

$938 billion. taxpayer funded health insurance subsidies. as you said, data ten year cost and of course part of the game share where they are collecting money over ten years of paying benefits over six will make a good -- look good as you say but it turns out and they had to reexamine two years of experience, what they found is the entire ten year budget window that the true size of this cost was masked and now that we have a clear picture, the cbo says the projected amount is $1.7 trillion over ten years. obamacare is going to cost more than $700 billion more than cbo estimated at the time the law was passed. how can you miscalculate by

almost double from $938 billion to $1.7 trillion. it is not cbo's ball. they are accountants. they do their figure and as the senator from wisconsin said, what the senate democrats and the president gave them was just part of the picture. they said you're going to have ten years of revenues but only six years of expenses. see how that works out. i wish we could all do our private budget at home that way. here is another way to look at it. you all heard of a mortgage with a bobble at the end. that is what this was. they basically said we know that cbo has to estimate ten year budgets so we have a great idea how to make this cost less. we will put the big expenditures in years 11 and 12. then ten years of expenditures,

not too bad. now that two years has passed and we are looking at a ten year budget that goes out ten more years from now, 12 years from when obamacare was first calculated turns out that when you add in years 11, your number 12, it adds to the cost. $700 billion worth. we also at the time, it was smoke and mirrors. they were pulling a fast one on the american people. we said that. you can trust cbo. you could trusts' cbo as far as they could calculate. if you said how about years 11 and 12 they would rather say that is another story but we were not asked about that. so i say to my friend from wisconsin you are exactly right. now we know what the real cost of this is going to be. by the way, if you want to go out over the entire period once the law is fully implemented

obamacare has not been fully implemented yet. what happens when you calculate it full cost when truly implemented, the budget committee on which senator sessions sits says total spending under obamacare will reach $2.6 trillion. these are the real costs we have to pay attention to, not just the estimates made at the time they were trying to get the law passed. i asked the senator of wisconsin or member of the ranking budget committee what about this, and real costs are the american taxpayers to be on the hook for something like $2.6 trillion according to the budget committee. the numbers you are talking about, projection using a different time frame. that doesn't take into account what i have been talking about

which is more significant risk to the deficit. this particular cbo estimate says only 1 million americans will use their employer sponsored care. there are 1 fifty four million americans who get employer sponsored care from sponsored plans. assume that only 1 million people will lose that coverage and get the exchanges is absurd particularly when you have a study by regular term, the results of that study, 50% of employers plan on dropping college and have their employees go to the exchanges. it is easy to understand why that might happen. rainout the health care law was 2700 pages. there has been another 12,000 pages of rules and regulations so employers looking at health

care are looking at do i try to comply with -- try to understand 15,000 pages of regulations and pay $20,000 for a family plan which is the new cbo estimate for a family plan in the year 2016. do i do that or do i pay the $2,000 penalty and with obamacare you are not exposing families to risk. you're making them eligible for $10,000 if you have health care with $64,000. we're not even beginning to contemplate what the effect of that might be. what do you think of that? concerns your right, and provided health insurance for your employee. you had to purchase it.

a ask one quick question. based on your experience, a year and a half ago, you were doing this business, what are the incentives that have been -- already in existence providing health care, why might they not continue to provide it, a small business of to grow and have -- and employer based health-care. >> becoming so expensive and the big difference obamacare for as an to the equation. most employers care about the people who work with them. they wouldn't dream of exposing their employees to financial

risk. these exchanges would be available, and huge sums of this. it will be totally different under obama care, and ended sensitivity analysis. didn't go anywhere near far enough from my standpoint. it might be twenty million individuals. when we have 1 fifty four million americans getting employer sponsored care and have of those were seventy-five million, >> all of us need to be listening to this. something that was not

sufficiently considered today. more employers make it providing insurance, company is get started, and it will cost more than expected. the low number that the congressional budget office said would go into the exchange taking the numbers, let me point out what john kyl said. president obama's exact quote to the joint session of congress when he was promoting this legislation, not some of the cup figure said that it all up, the planned time proposing would cost $100 billion over ten

years. taxes started right away but spending was four years delayed effectively. six years of spending on the plan. it also excluded many other provisions. for example of bureaucratic implementation policy, the amount of i r s people that have to be involved was not counted. you spending quote on medicare. we didn't have the money in 2003 when asking a prescription drug bills to fund that. now we have never been in worse shape. we are borrowing $0.40 of every dollar we spend. and $1 trillion deficit. we don't have the money. spending more on that program that we didn't have. a new early retiree program.

all the different provisions from the health care law, total gross spending over the original ten years not when six years is being paid for. over ten years is $1.4 trillion. that is the numbers we have. this was a misrepresentation. this is from 2009 through 2019. 1$.4 trillion. when you add up the costs over the first four years of this health-care bill it will be $2.6 trillion. the point is the bill is not good health policy. american people oppose it overwhelmingly and absolutely we do not have the money. we have never had a more systemic death threat to america. it is so painful to see this happen. so senator johnson, thank you for your energy, the commitment you brought to this issue. you have seen it on the other

side. the real world side. you are helping motivate us all pause to explain to the american people the dangers of the bill. >> we talked about this in the past. part of getting here, people talked about the medicare cuts being double counted. never quite understood exactly what that was. can you explain a little bit to the american people what that means? >> the health obamacare legislation, there was an increase in medicare taxes and make cuts in medicare benefits. total $400 billion. that money was used to fund a new health care bill by the u.s. treasury. an entirely new program. but it is medicare money.

not the treasury money. medicare has trustees. medicare loaned the money to the u.s. treasury. it was borrowed money that was used to fund this bill. not money that came in new and free of charge. since medicare is going into default, to claim its debt in a few years the federal government simply is going to have to raise taxes and cut spending somewhere else or more likely convert the bombing from medicare, borrow money on the open market from china and other places and take medicare back. it is really as the cbo director told me in a letter on december 23rd the night before we voted, you are double counting the money. no wonder this country is going broke. this isn't extra money. half of the original estimate of the bill, $900 billion was

funded by borrowing money from medicare. this is how this country is surging in its debt and why it is in danger of the entire economy collapsing. >> do you believe that those medicare savings are realized? do you believe congress will enact those savings? >> that is a good point. in the past week claimed we would make savings in medicare and they never occur. what i am saying is if the savings were to occur and if the new taxes on medicare go into effect as they are, that money is what is being used to fund an entirely new health-care program. and real doubt that it will ever achieve savings in medicare because if you keep cutting doctors and hospitals they can't keep doing work. they will start refusing medicare, medicaid work. and we are in that position on

some of the cuts we rescind every year because we know the health care system would collapse that would go into effect. >> let's say we enact those cuts of medicare. and providers and doctors and even cover the cost. currently -- hard figure to get to, i read where 60% of providers are willing to see and treat medicaid patients. new individuals on medicaid roles where 60% of providers have seen those. i would like to ask the senator, you not only are in new senator but a doctor and you run a business. can you comment on that as well? you have some comments in terms of how this health care law will affect employment and jobs.

>> i appreciate your leadership in this kerri and i appreciate the fact that you jumped out and ran for the office and were elected because we desperately need people like yourself, people who were successful business men that understand the unintended consequences of much of what we do for and i, like you, have first had the understanding of the issue from employers perspective and unique perspective. before i came to congress i practiced optometry and helped run and icare clinic with my partners, nine other partners. and the health care bill came before us, i've fully understand from medical provider and the business aspect, from both accountant with the wrong approach to the problem of rising health care cost and with the doctors caucus in the house worked hard to highlight the

problems and also highlight the alternative options working for the free-market approach. and health care costs are crippling americans, many americans lack access to quality health care. not the nation's overall economic development, real difficulties with physicians and hospitals that they face when a comes flexibility and affordability of health care services. they're the right way and wrong way to address the problem. the president's health care law is the wrong approach and a wrong answer. $1.75 trillion, the law causes more problems than it solves. it is not lowering health-care costs as we are seeing and is driving them up. is not deficit neutral. it is a budget buster.

medicare because of the cuts, because of the way it is set up will lead to rationing and decreased quality of care. it will not help the economy. it is stalling the recovery. on that note the president's health-care law makes it difficult for small business owners to hire more employees at a time when our economic recovery continues to lag. the concerns over new mandates, confusing rules and additional taxes have small business owners rightfully concerned. i can appreciate it this in the sense of not being a health care provider, somebody that had 85 employees. far from creating jobs as the president promised it is estimated the law will result in 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. almost as if the law was written with no input from america's strong business owners and health care providers that will

run it. in the 24 years that i was at our clinic in northwest arkansas we grow up with five employees to 85 and wisconsin can attest to the fact that the guiding your business to the point where you can add personnel is not an easy task. it takes strategic planning and management but also takes an economic environment that allows small business to expand and invest and hire. instead of doing that the health care law furthers the climate of uncertainty that our job creators are finding. small-business owners are certainly hurting in this economy and worried about tax hikes and washington keeps threatening to force upon them. enormous flood of regulations coming their way. gas prices skyrocketing. profits are way down and resolve of the sluggish economy. there is so much uncertainty. what mandates will evolve from this health care law and ultimately what these costs will be for small business owners

only adds to that pennies for. business owners say the major concern that keeps them from hiring and i have been out and about as much as anybody in the past two years. this is exactly what i am hearing. the major cause for that keeps them from hiring people is the uncertainty caused by the cost that they feel they would incur by the new health care law. we need to repeal and replace it with health care reform based on a free-market. >> thank you. it is extremely important for us in the next coming weeks and months to paint a very accurate picture to the american people about what our health care system is going to look like, what our federal budget is going to look like. the effect on american jobs and the economy and on our freedoms. we are going to witness, if this health care law is implemented, it is critical that we provide

the american people that type of information and senator roberts in terms of how the health care law will affect our jobs and the economy, he has been very good at describing some of the nonsense regulations being undertaken by this administration. i would like to share your thoughts of what you think. paint as a picture of what americans look like under this health care law. >> i want to give you a lot of credit for reading this in regards to where we are two years in the passage. it is hard to say what it is. the affordable care act. it used to be the acronym which i thought was appropriate and of course if you politicize it is called obamacare. i don't mean to do that in this debate but i do want to thank

you for focusing on jobs. i have some prepared remarks. senator john kyl what to do a new program opening troops and consequences and point out the consequences. if you ask the cbo for a score they will give you exactly what you want but then the truth is down a road it costs an awful lot more. one person you left out in terms of the cbo telling the truth is richard foster who is the actuary at the department of health and human services. that man ought to get a medal of honor. not a medal of honor. just a purple heart and a bronze star for action during the war zone and maybe a medal of freedom later. senator sessions who is the president will log on the budget

really hit it. thank you for that. that is half a trillion dollars. the other half of that is half a trillion that goes to all these exchanges and rules and regulations and setting up the affordable health care act and basically it denies medicare reimbursement to all sorts of folks. doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers and hospital administrators. on and on. we had a health care summit in topeka, kansas. 34 regulations popped out of work and we could have had 164. we sent a 34 in to the secretary of age 2 s and went to hayes, kansas, america. that is in the world health care delivery system. we had seven different regulations. i hope we will have a colloquy on regulations that we can certainly insert those in the record. senator boozman david

standpoint of what happened in regard to rationing. let me get your attention for a minute. you know who enforces this thing? at the end of the year if you don't sign of, does put on your tax return which i assume it will be in terms of what kind of coverage you have, it is the irs. the irs will be the enforcement entity. oozing forcing this? your friendly internal revenue service reenforced it. so i have a lot of feeling about this. i took from florida the day to discuss promises made and promises not kept. i would tell the distinguished senator from wisconsin all the words that come back to bite

you. president's promise that you can keep your health care plan. he might have believed it then as senator johnson -- that is just not the case. i didn't believe it then and i said so. you two are taking a good look and you don't believe it either. employers and health-care providers told me when the majority of the provisions of the health care reform law would take effect it would be more affordable for an employer to simply stop offering their employees' coverage and pay a penalty rather than face the increase in premiums and continue to offer any coverage. now these predictions turned into fact. the new study just released by mckinsey and co. predicts large numbers of workers will be shifted into the health

exchanges in 2014 and that is a shift that vote should be worried about. exec what you are talking about. with early thousands of regulations and waivers are pouring out of the department of health and human services. 12,700 pages of additional regulations, micromanage the private market. to make matters worse there is the predictable worry that these changes would be better described as something similar to medicaid hmos. that is the service we can expect and that threatens access, choice of doctors not to mention rationing regime that would be the marching order of the day and i will have more to say about that in the colloquy in the next several days. at the time the president made his promise the cbo estimated as jon kyl pointed out that 7 present employees, and by employees of insurance would make the switch or switch to

taxpayer subsidized exchanges. now i would tell the senator study after study is releasing act and figures that find the health care reform causing many of those employers to quit offering their current health insurance. the survey by benefits consultants at lofton when asked about the cost of modifying changes required by or resulting from health-care reform they said each notification will cost $1 to $3 per employee. talk about costs. this would raise costs by tens of thousands of dollars for some firms and one in five is considering terminating coverage out right, each study, the numbers go up and the mackenzie survey found 50% of employers will definitely probably pursue alternatives. 30% of employees will simply

stop offering any coverage. there are more facts to come. i'm going on too long and i understand that. i want to thank my colleagues. there is no such thing as free health care. somebody does day. in this case the american taxpayers will foot the bill for workers who employer sponsored coverage has been dropped due to the health care reform. there was another that i would like to mention there's no rationing on this bill. went a bet? there's nothing that hurts the truth more than stretching it. with obamacare, jobs and costs will be stressed beyond the limit.

i thank the senator for sponsoring this. >> human reaction. what else does the independent advisor board for? do you have a clue? >> that would lead -- i would be suspicious of that. you have stood up here. you may have additional comments. >> my colleague from kansas talked-about vote free care. reminded me -- you think insurance is expensive now legal just wait till it is free. that is the point. somebody has to pay for it at the end of the day. new statistics as to how this is working out. the cbo had a chance to examine how obamacare really plays out. here's their new estimate. talking about real costs to real families. cbo estimates obamacare will

increase premiums by 10% to 13% and to make that number real, that is a $2,100 annual increase for the cost of the average family of purchasing their own insurance coverage. for six private actuarial analyses have all indicated obamacare will increase premiums with projected increases ranging as high as 16% and why is that so? it is like a balloon. you push on one side, the health care is going to cost. they have to pay people at hospitals and so on. it isn't free as our colleague from kansas is pointing out. if the government can't afford it then what the insurance companies have to do is charge the extra expense to the people in the private insurance market. when the president complaints about why insurance costs are

going so high he only has himself to blame. if they do not reimburse the provided they have to get money from the private sector and that is why a $2,000 annual increase in the cost of insurance for the average family because of the cost shifting that is going on. it is a result of a way the government designed the insurance that it is provided for in obamacare. it is young people especially hard because they are the ones that end up having to buy insurance that they don't really need to. according to america's health-insurance plans premiums raise 48% for people 18 to 29 years old in 42 of the 50 states. premium increases 48%. then of course they also tax health insurance which we end up paying for because that is passed on in the form of higher insurance premiums. that is the $60 billion tax on health insurance added on top of

the new taxes on innovation, new pharmaceutical products, new medical devices. the tax is included in obamacare are passed to in -- consumers in higher prices. the bottom line is we are paying for this one way or the other either through new taxes or what we pay to the government or what we pay in our private insurance because the physicians and hospitals have to make up the money one way or the other. the bottom line is obamacare which was supposed to have reduced costs ends the increasing them and supposed to expand, according to a private association estimating the cost here, fbn cost shift from government programs, medicare

and medicaid totals $88.8 billion a year. adding $110,780 to a family's insurance policy on top of what i spoke about before. this cost shift obviously would increase with obama's medicaid and medicare cuts which are further on down the road and that will cause premiums to skyrocket even more. bottom-line we were right when we said it. it will drive up taxes and reduce innovation and at the end of the date doesn't cover more people. all in all great success, i would say. >> remember in wisconsin, health-care debate, president obama promising if you pass this health care law the average cost per family would decline by $2,500 per year. one of those broken promises

senator roberts was mentioning earlier. >> it is not and ipad or an iphone or whatever. apple has not a thing to do with it. the administration in response to concern about rationing and many publications said the claims that the board, all of these rationing boards will ration care are simply false. at the time i repeated my concerns over and over again. remember those days in the finance committee. everybody laughed when i started in on my ranch and the health care reform law's potential to ration care, it isn't only ipad. i would say to the senator from wisconsin and that is the c m s innovation center. the new authority granted to the preventive service task force,

patient centered outcome research institute and i had. that is not a toothpaste. the american public was told over and over these provisions of the health care reform law would not result in rationing of loss of access or reduce quality. but once again, medicare actuary richard foster, bravest man in the government and many others noted the kind of payment reductions contemplated by ipad reduce access to care comandantes. the actuary stated the reductions in the law could jeopardize access for care for beneficiaries. senior beneficiaries. also predicted ipad reductions in particular would be difficult to achieve in practice because of the access related harm to seniors that would result. that is ipad for you. >> you u.s. preventive service

task force. was that not proposed mammograms until the age of 50? >> for every proposal, thank goodness there has been a reaction and everybody else to say this doesn't make sense. it is an agenda oriented board or commission or whatever that comes under the banner of rationing. i have a wonderful chart i will show you in the next colloquy in regard to four rations and asked me about ipad. they are a little bit 9. i have to change the characters. they're like a four horsemen of the apocalypse in regards to the health care system of the united states. as you look that each of them and what they're doing they are rationing care. they are rationing care.

>> beginning to see the tip of the iceberg of the assault on the freedom, if implemented will -- >> this rationing is such an important situation. we're seeing rationing right now. has an optometrist more than a senator i get calls all the time for people who moved into town and can't find a health care provider for there and oracle who is in -- and core uncle who is in that group because of the medicaid plan. seniors are smart about adding patients under this plan and along with that, the increase in physician fees, no increase in the infrastructure required to take care of them. something has got to give and that will be quality of care and rationing. same is true of medicaid. in arkansas we have to increase

medicaid rolls. and something has got to give. how do you pay for that. the reality is it will cost us -- in the neighborhood of $400 million. that will come from providers. will come from decreased funding for education, roads and things like that. for you can't do this without rationing and consolidation. >> bottom line of this health care law is basically going to increase demand and reducing supply. is not the way you bend the cost curve down. a few more comments. >> senator john kyl remembers -- the senator from kansas as he indicated were engaged in this cost curve. the essence of the president's

proposal went to the core by the proposal financing was the federal government expansion of our authority we would bend the cost curve and make health care cheaper for all americans. that was a fundamental principle and some business people thought was a great idea but it hasn't happened. already premiums in private health care have gone up $2,000 almost $200 a month and we will see it continue to go up. it does not bent the cost curve down. we're seeing the opposite to occur. we have to know that our her person government that, senator johnson is on the budget committee and he knows this, is worse than any other western world nation. per-capita we have more debt than dellums, spain, italy,

ireland. $44,000 per person. for we all owe man, woman and child. the president submitted a budget if it were to be enacted and certainly will not be, if it were that would go to $75,000 per person in ten years. this health care bill is dramatically adding to that. every expert we had at the budget committee has told us we are on an unsustainable paths, a spending that have that will lead to financial collapse. mr. erskine bowles and alan simpson who chaired the debt commission both together issued a written statement that america has never faced a more predictable financial crisis and what they told us was spending as we are today, running out debt as we are today guarantees a financial collapse that could

impact every person in america and deeply impact our ability to have healthcare in this country. we have to recognize the house of representatives, republican controlled house will unveil a budget plan on wednesday that will be the senate is not going to bring up a budget. the democratic leader has said it is foolish to have a budget. so we will go for the third consecutive year without even attempting to pass a budget. supposed to be out of the committee by april 1st. supposed to be passed by april 15th. the house is going to do it. they're going to step up to the plate and way out like they did last year a plan that will change the debt course of america and put us on a sustainable path so we don't

have to fear financial collapse and they are going to look at this legislation and it can't be imposed. we do not have the money. it will make health-care worse as we heard but more than that even if it were a good idea, a nice thing to have we do not have the money. we are borrowing $0.40 of every dollar we spend. it misrepresented the cost. it is higher than anyone expected and it will continue. for example our people have looked at the cbo score on the budget committee and analyzed it fairly and i am prepared to defend these numbers based on the cbo's or. from the first year and allow for -- the law is in effect until 2023 will cause $2.66 trillion. park more than was projected. how much money is that? over the same ten year period,

federal highway is which spent $626 billion. we have been fighting over highways and passed the highway bill. the whole highway system federal money would be 626 while we are adding a new program improperly funded but $2,600,000,000,000. education that we expect to spend over the next ten years is $1,000,000,000,000. this health-care cost would be $2,600,000,000,000. disaster aid. we spoke -- fell lot of money on disasters. we will spend $111 billion on disasters where as we will spend $2,600,000,000,000 on the health care bill. this is the kind of thing the american people are asking are you crazy? how can you borrow $0.40 of every dollar you spend as we are doing today?

how can you do that to america? what is the matter with you people? they say they are not smart. they're just angry. they have a right to be angry. we are adding a program that is done sound that will make health care worse and we don't have a money burden --. this money needs to be used to save medicare and social security programs that are already in great jeopardy. if we have money we have to use it to save them, not start a new program, in massive proportions that over 75 years ago costs far more than anyone imagined. so thank you for raising this. i am concerned about the cost. others have talked about the rationing. there are a lot of reasons we simply cannot go forward with this health-care bill. it must be eliminated as we know it and we can make reforms that

this legislation cannot go into effect. >> i appreciate your comments and those of senator robert and john kyl, in conclusion two points i want to make is we talked about estimates. i ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. >> is there objection? without objection. >> it is important to understand all the efforts we're talking about our estimates. the federal government is not particularly good at making estimates because if you think to 1965 when they first past manicured projected in 1990 it would cost $12 billion. it cost $110 billion, nine times the original cost estimate. the other point you were making is doesn't make sense for the federal government to take over a sixth of our economy. i have asked the question of

thousands of individuals. do you believe the federal government can take over one sixth of our economy, health-care sector and to effectively and efficiently? iff thousands of people. two brave souls raise their hand. the fact is the american people do not believe the federal government is capable of doing that. i would like to remind everybody that nancy pelosi famously said we have to test this bill so you can find out what is in it. i know that we are dedicated to make sure we don't have to fully implement before we figure out what it is going to cost because it could bankrupt this nation. with that i yield the floor. >> the supreme court is set to hear three days of oral argument next week on the health care law and provide same-day audio each day, monday, tooth and when they. you can hear that when it is released until 2:00 eastern with

coverage on c-span3 and on c-span.org. the u.s. senate continues debate in a bill to help small business raise funds on the internet change rules that have to go public and a series of votes this morning including one related to an amendment authorizing the export/import bank. the charter runs out at the end of may. live senate coverage at 10:00 eastern on this network, c-span2. the house committee gives the federal government that seem minus grade for its ability to check information and free of an information act requests it received. that came out as american university law school held an event on transparency and opened this in government. one session included officials from the office of government information service to discuss their challenges and progress. this is about an hour. >> this will start any minute on the first panel.

if everyone will quiet down a lot of conversation is going on upstairs where the hand outs are. and the refreshments. we call that the foia foyer. we call it that all year long. by the way, it looks like the sun is beginning to peak out a little bit. his freedom of information day, i want to make sure everyone in the audience knows the we have handouts bloggers the many handouts including detailed biographical sketch on everyone who is speaking here today so you will find that the moderators including myself will not spend a lot of time -- details -- stenson time on that

because we try to get as much, and and out during the day as possible. i am going to sit in on the first panel and introduce miriam nesmith and hopefully more and more people in the viewing audience -- i can say the new director -- office of government -- it has been in existence since september of 2009 so it has been 2-1/2 years. it either feels like ten years or four weeks. depending on one day to the next with in the office of government freedom of information services. miriam is someone who came back

from paris to her husband's dismay to accept the senior executive service position as -- [talking over each other] >> i am not implying a break up. had u-turn that job down, and allowed him to stay in paris, france in the near future that would have been fine with him. anything beyond that is exemption vi information and if i go a half step further it will be 17 investigations. miriam has more varied experience in the openness and government related area than just about anyone else.

prior to being a director of the information services division n unesco in paris she was at the archives where she was the right hand person to several -- she was legislative counsel of american library association and in an earlier life, 30 years ago miriam was the best deputy director the office of information privacy ever had by far. supposition she held for a dozen years from 1982 to 1994. with that i am going to just let miriam go on for the rest of the panel and we will talk about very interesting developments not only about otis in general but sunshine week in particular.

>> thank you. >> the opening of a recent discussion on freedom of information act request. you can see this program in its entire rihanna website, c-span.org. comments now from former fdic chief sheila bair talking about the economy and that event hosted by the atlantic last week. >> i couldn't help but think when we were listening to larry lindsey who kept referring to the sympathetic media and whether i was part of that so i want to be very hard hitting. good to see you. we had fantastic conversations today. there have been a lot of digs, people have been taking digs at the other side ideologically. no knockout punches. we hope to get one of those from you. let's start by talking about the same icy in newspapers all over the place. everybody is in jesting this information about the bank's trust test.

stress test. we decided to move the results of the stress test from yesterday. now they are out. when we talk about the fund tuesday morning you suggested not everybody was going to pass with flying colors. generally speaking it would be more good than bad and a negative result wouldn't necessarily mean that a bank is in trouble. you would note that more than most people. giving your evaluation of the stress test. >> the stress test would determine what banks occasional common equity risk-based assets would be at a very high economic scenario of 13% unemployment and 13% drop in the stock market, 21% drop in home prices. that would be distressed economic environment, not one that anybody is predicting but what are predicting the 2008 crisis either. the fed wants to make sure that even in this kind